FOIAb3b it Septeia nifizdd&9Approve K'IM 1.LC1kRDp7-S ~IR0001000500 6-4 118415 about to be passed. The document, with the word Secret stamped on every page, was the 1060 Sprague Committee Report to President Eisenhower. Its authors included Allen Dulles, the Direc- tor of the Central Intelligence Agency; George Allen, the Director of the United States Information Agency; Gordon Gray and C. D. Jackson. The pages contained secret draft texts still being worked upon in the Executive Offices of President Eisenhower and in the State Do- partment and the United States Information Agency. Mr. Brubeck had importuned Mr. Gooten- burg to obtain the document because the race between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon was then "neck and neck." The con- tents of the secret report might win just enough votes to give the election to John Kennedy, Mr. Brubeck had said. The Sprague report documented that pub- lic opinion polls abroad had indicated that the prestige of the U.S. had declined in comparison to that of the Soviet Union. Mr. Brubeck immediately communicated with Robert Kennedy and then invited friendly correspondents from the New York Times and the Washington Post to read the secret Sprague Report and to make extracts from it. After the New York Times and the Wash- ington Post reported the contents, the story was picked up nationally by the Associated last two months of 1960. The man on his way to the Civil Service Commission was Otto F. Otepka, the State Department's former top professional Se- curity Officer, now dismissed from his se- curity post, severely reprimanded and re- duccd in grade by Secretary Rusk. The reason for his disgrace? Without prior approval of his immediate superior, John Reilly, who since has resigned under the threat of a purjury charge, Mr. Otepka delivered a classi- fied document to the Senate Internal So- curity Subcommittee. At the time, Mr. Otepka was under. oath and felt he had to tell the Senators the truth. The man on his way to visit' close and powerful friends in the State Department was William H. Brubeck. Like Mr. Otepka, Mr. Brubeck had also become famous for delivering, without prior authorization, a classified White House and State Department document to someone else. The only difference was that Mr. Brubeck was not under oath and he had passed the secret document to members of the press not authorized to receive it: At the time, Mr. Brubeck was Director of Public Relations in the national cam- paign headquarters of John F. Kennedy. in November 1960, Mr. Brubeck's once was lo- cated on the fourth floor of 1737 L Street la the nation's capitol. A very close friend was Robert F. Kennedy. On?tho afternoon of November 3, Mr. Bru- bock received Roy Gootenburg, a Federal employee working in the Bureau of the Budget but assigned temporarily to a sensi- tive position in the State Department. Mr. Brubeck and Mr, Gootenburg had had several conversations about the secret document American "mbnssy in London. He was now Press, the United Press International and about to ;sit his friends in the State Do- the television networks. partment just before beginning a year's Many persons believe this public relations course at the State Department's coveted coup produced the margin of victory for Mr. Senior Seminar in. Arlington, Virginia. Kennedy. The other man, equally well known to In commenting on the usefulness in the Secretary Rusk, was on his way to the Civil election campaign of the leaked secret Service Commission building across the way Sprague Report, Carl T. Rowan, the Director from the State Department. of the United States Information Agency So far as the Secretary of State was con- under President Kennedy, wrote in October corned, this second man was in deep dis- 196G, as follows: grace. In fact, for many months now he had "The late John F. Kennedy raised the received no pay at all from the State De- Issue of America's declining prestige shrewdly partment. and effectively during the 1960 presidential As the two men passed each other on July campaign. Using polls gained surreptitiously 31, they could reflect on the irony with he documented his charge that the Ameri- which the fate of each was sealed In the can image suffered under the Eisenhower administration. There can be no doubt that this gambit won Kennedy some precious .votes." Both the late President, John F. Kennedy, and his brother, the late Robert F. Kennedy, informed Mr, Rusk of Mr. Brubeck's impor- tant personal role in the unauthorized leak- ing to the press of the secret Sprague Report. This was done about the time Robert Ken- nedy and Dean Rusk met with Otto Otepka in December 1960 to consider the security problems in connection with the appoint- ment to the State Department of Walt Whit- man Rostow. Early in 1961 Secretary Rusk appointed Mr. Brubeck as Director of the Executive Secretariat in the Immediate Office of the Secretary- of State. He was given, as is the .case with many "political appointees," the rank of Foreign Service Reserve Officer, Class 2. After a subsequent promotion to Foreign Service Reserve Of 1cer Class 1, Mr. Brubeck was named a "career" Foreign Service Officer Class 1. He is one of the rare Foreign Service Officers to have' begun his "career" at the very top. It likewise developed that his. first post abroad was the American Embassy In London, one of the prize plums of the American diplomatic service. Thus the two men whose paths crossed on July 31, 1068, on the corner of Virginia Avenue and 21st Street in the nation's capital could only reflect with irony on how differently the Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and Under Secretary George Ball, now Am- bassador to the UN, have been able to react, to the "unauthorized delivery" of classified documents to persons outside the Depart- ment of State. 'THE ACLU-LIBERTY OR LICENSE? (Mr. ASIBROOK asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the REcoRD and to' Include ex- traneous matter.) Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, Bar- ron's, the national business and financial weekly, is currently running a three-part series of articles on the American Civil Liberties Union which is both exhaustive and highly informative. Written by the author and reporter, Shirley Scheibla, the articles present the Union's long, stormy and controversial history in a convenient form for consideration. Mrs. Scheibla will be remembered for her re- cent review of the abuses of the poverty program In her book, "Poverty Is Where the Money Is." As in the case of her book, her treatment of the ACLU is laden with specific information which could have resulted only from persistent effort and dogged investigation. Unlike some jour- nalists, this author believes in letting the facts speak for themselves, while holding editorializing to a bare minimum. It Is all well and good to say that ours Is a government of laws and not men, but it must be remembered that we are presupposing just, consistent, prudent, and balanced interpretations of such laws. One cannot stress civil liberties to the exclusion of civil responsibilities, nor discard c,-n inunity, State and Federal responsibilities under the guise of civil rights. This, in effect, would be the end result if the many ACLU positions in its many areas of endeavor were to be up- held. In fact, a good test of the overall radical nature of ACLU policies can be appreciated by supposing that X11 the cases mentioned in the following two ar- ticles were ruled in favor of the ACLU. What a state of chaos would prevail in this country, if indeed, there was any country left at all. Although the ACLU has assisted some who have been members of the Commu- nist Party, no Federal agency has found that the organization is a Communist front. As far back as 1939, Congressman Martin Dies, the chairman of a House committee which was the forerunner of the present House Committee on Un- American Activities, stated: This Committee found last year, In its re- port, that there was not any evidence that the American Civil :Liberties Union was a Communist organization. In 1960, Mr. Richard Arens, formerly counsel for HCUA, observed: The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, has never been investigated by the Commit- tee on Un-American Activities, nor has It been found to be a Communist front by the Committee on Un-American Activities, or, so far as I know, by any governmental agency," In 1961 the Senate Fact-Finding Sub- committee on Un-American Activities of the State of California, in its annual re- port for that year found that the Cali- fornia chapters of the ACLU were not "so infiltrated by Communists or fellow travelers at the present time to justify us in characterizing any of them as a Communist front." This subcommittee, at the request of the ACLU in California, reviewed the history, objectives, organi- zational structure, operational tech- niques and other detailed matter con- cerning the national organization and stated in part that: It seeks to exclude Communists from hold- ing any office or serving on its staff=yet it permits them to become members and ap- pears unconcerned about its representatives belonging to Communist fronts. One current illustration of an extreme cause to which the ACLU seems to have an affinity for is the banning from entry into the United States of an issue of the Crusader, the publication issued by Rob- ert Williams, the revolutionary who fled the United States in 1961 to escape a kid- 'napping charge and who turned up in Cuba, Red China, and now Tanzania. Ac- cording to the Washington Post of No- vember 3-1967, the May issue the Cru- sader for that year, "urges Negro service- men In Vietnam to 'eliminate' their real enemies, and to generally r.abotago the war effort." According to t.: ?ost the newsletter also advocated armed violence in American cities. The Post Office con- tends that using the mails for literature of this nature is in violation of U.S. law, but Melvin L. Wulf of the ACLU thinks differently. According to the above-cited Sanitized = Approved For Relbase : CIA-RDP75-00001 R000100050026-4

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews